May 25, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / Democratic Politics

Poll Results from “Insiders” on the Utah Nomination System

May 10, 2013 by 1 Comment

A couple of days back, I presented a very brief summary of the debate occurring in the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties about the efforts of an outside group, the County My Vote committee, to influence how Utah’s parties conduct their nomination system. You can read it here.

I posted a poll of my readers asking what they thought should happen. Should the system change? Should the parties give up control of the process? Etc.

You might call these people the “Publius Online insiders.”

Not surprisingly, most of them were Republicans. I can’t help it if Democrats opted not to vote.  ;-)

Here are the results of the completely non-scientific poll:

Should the parties control their nominations

What changes would you support

Party affiliation

Are you feeling left out?

You can still vote in my completely unscientific poll below:

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

LaVarr Webb’s insiders weigh in on Utah’s nomination system [POLL]

May 8, 2013 by 5 Comments
Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010. Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Crowds of people fill out precinct forms, paw over piles of political pamphlets and get informed at a Republican caucus meeting at the North Davis Preparatory Academy in Layton Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
Brian Nicholson, Deseret News

Don’t forget to vote in the poll at the bottom of this post!

If you’ve been following inside politics around Utah of late, then you know that the talk among the party insiders–in both the Republican and Democratic Parties–has largely centered around whether Utah’s caucus system needs an update, should be jettisoned to make way for an open primary, or otherwise modified. (If you’re interested in how the Utah caucus system works, check out this interesting document by Dana Dickson that spells out the details. It can also be found embedded at the bottom of this post).

Yes, I know, this has not been the sole issue of discussion.  Party leadership elections are fast approaching , as well. The caucus is near and dear to many Utah politos’ hearts, though, and it has been the route many of them took to get elected. Further, many feel like the caucus allows and encourages unparalleled access to the political process and to elected officials, to say nothing of allowing candidates with little financial backing an opportunity for public office on a level with better funded candidates.

For examples, look no further than Senator Mike Lee. In 2010, then-candidate Mike Lee saw then-Senator Bob Bennett knocked out at the Republican State Convention by delegates who tied Bennett to the government’s massive Wall Street bailout (remember TARP?).  Lee then faced off against Tim Bridgewater in the Republican Primary, securing the nomination. He easily won election in November.

In fact, many of those discontent with the current system look to the 2010 convention as a reason for opening up the Republican Primary and/or ending the caucus system. Proponents of change argue that then-Senator Bob Bennett would easily have won an open primary in Utah, but extremist Republicans, in control of the convention, denied him the right to be on the ballot.

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

LaVarr Webb, publisher of Utah Policy and leading member of the group seeking to change the Utah caucus system

One of those behind the effort to change the Republican (and maybe the Democratic) caucus system is LaVarr Webb, publisher of the Utah Policy, (tagline: “Where political junkies get their daily fix”). He sent a letter on April 12, 2013 from his group, the “Count My Vote” executive committee,  and addressed to Republican and Democratic Party leaders.  The letter ostensibly seeks to help more people get involved, but alarmingly appears to all but threaten if party leaders don’t bring about changes to the nomination system.

After acknowledging some of the qualities in the nomination system that I noted above, the letter goes on to threaten a statewide referendum by  ”Count My Vote”  if the system is not changed by the political parties.  I quote in part:

We believe this matter to be of such high importance that we are in the process of filing the proper paperwork and putting together a large, statewide signature-gathering effort to place a proposal on the 2014 ballot allowing all voters to choose an alternative candidate nomination process

To avoid the state referendum, Webb says that the parties must

  1. Allow more people to participate in caucus meetings than just those who are available at a specified time. Just because you are sick or have children is no reason to be denied a vote in delegate and party leadership selection.
  2. Raise the threshold necessary to avoid a primary and eliminate multiple rounds of voting. In other words, any candidate who receives a marginal level of support (Webb suggest 20 or 25% of delegate vote) has the opportunity to face a primary election.
  3. Make the changes statutory. In other words, once the parties have made the changes, hand them over to the state legislature so that the nomination process is out of the hands of the political parties.   This last one makes about as much sense as asking your parents to pick out your spouse for you.

Read the full letter here or scroll down to see it embedded.

Ironically, it may be that those who consume Webb’s political content–his Utah Policy Daily–don’t necessarily agree with him.  A recent poll on his site on whether Utah’s Democratic Party will change its nominating system came out looking less than shiny for a direct primary.

UPD Caucus Poll 5-6-13

What do you think? Should Utah’s parties change their nomination process?

 

LaVarr Webb’s letter to the Utah Republican and Democratic Parties

Webb m e m o r a n d u m 4-12-13

ABCs of the Utah Caucus System

 

Utah Caucus ABC s

Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Politics, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Why Dabakis Won and What We Can Expect [Contributor]

December 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Utah Democratic Party Chair Jim Dabakis was selected by delegates to serve out the rest of Salt Lake County Mayor Elect Ben McAdams’ term in the Utah Senate on Saturday.

Sometimes you need a Democrat to explain why Democrats do what they do.

When Utah Democrats selected Utah Democratic Party Chair  and bomb-thrower Jim Dabakis to replace the more measured and publicly moderate Ben McAdams (billboard motto: “Moderation in all things”) in a special election last week, my first thoughts were, simultaneously: “this ought to make the session fun” and “they’re crazy.”

Clearly, Democrats are not crazy, but I am a little biased. So I turned to a friend, Curtis Haring, a Democrat and coincidentally one of the delegates who participated in the special election, for his take on what happened and why.  As a blogger at Blue in Red Zion (add it to your reader!), Curtis often impresses me with insightful analysis and a civil tone. He avoids the inflammatory rhetoric that is all too prevalent in today’s politics, and so even when we disagree, it’s hard not to like him.

With that in mind, I asked Curtis two questions, and he was gracious enough to answer them:

Why was Jim Dabakis selected over others? And what should we expect from him during the 2013 legislative session?

Yours,
Daniel B. 

______________________

Why Dabakis Won, And What We Can Expect

By Curtis Haring

Being a Democratic delegate in Senate District 2, I (along with 129 other delegates who voted in the special election this past Saturday) had the responsibility of choosing the next senator to represent Downtown and Avenues neighborhoods, replacing Salt Lake County Mayor Elect Ben McAdams.The field was a talented one: Robert Comstock – longtime Democratic activist and teacher;  outgoing state representative Brian Doughty;  former Salt Lake County Councilwoman, Jenny Wilson;  current Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon;  and  current Utah Democratic Party Chair Jim Dabakis.

With little exceptions, each candidate was similar on the issues. All spoke for better education funding, expanding the tax base, improving the environment, expanding the rights of the LGBT community, and liberalizing liquor laws – just to name a few.  Because of this, the choice of each delegate came down to two main factors: the personality of the candidate and what role Senate District 2 plays as a sounding board for the Utah Democratic Party.

The first point is a common theme among just about every election, but the second one is a unique one for Democrats in Utah. Senate District 2 is arguably the safest senate seat in the state. No matter how Republicans may try to slice and dice the area up during redistricting, the math points to the fact that the area will vote Democrat. This means that whoever runs in the area can, in theory, propose the most liberal of bills without fear of the electorate – indeed, they run a risk of not being reelected in the area if they are too moderate. The seat then serves as a soundboard for the Utah Democratic Party, and the senator from the district can show the rest of the state what a Democratic (note the big “D”) government could look like.

So, the question each delegate had to ask was: “What do I want my party to look like?” On one hand, you have the pragmatic go-along-to-get-along candidates such as Wilson and Corroon. On the other you have the big and boisterous loud and proud Democrats such as Comstock, Dabakis, and, to a lesser extent, Doughty. One approach, so the theory goes, leads to greater legislative success; the other, so it is felt, allows (at the very least) one senator the opportunity to continually and consistently attack the Republican message on the hill.

For those of you paying attention, you know that the latter mode of thought won with the narrow victory of Jim Dabakis over Peter Corroon. Senate 2 Democrats signaled that they, at the very least, are tired of the status quo and they no longer wish to be treated as an afterthought…Dabakis has publicly said that he intends to “shame” Republicans for their woeful track record on education and that he would “travel from Logan to St. George” if he had to, in order to make sure all voters are aware of how Republicans truly treat the people.

Obviously this is a departure from outgoing Senator Ben McAdams who, during his run for Salt Lake County Mayor, pointed to his success working with all political affiliations – including those pesky Republicans – in order to pass legislation, both as a senator and while working for the Salt Lake City Mayors office.

Interestingly, on the day of the election, Dabakis started to step back his “bomb throwing” rhetoric, appealing to moderates with his working class roots. During his first speech among the delegates, with a mist in his eye, he explained why he was a Democrat: the dignity of labor, the struggle for equality, and the desire for a better tomorrow, were all motifs in his delivery. Far from the attack dog, Dabakis’s final plea before the delegates cast their vote was one of humility and loyalty.

And this raises an interesting question: What will Senator Dabakis look like?

Judging by his history, Dabakis will be able to walk a fine line between actively attacking ideas and policy, but not necessarily the people proposing them. This will make for an interesting dynamic that makes us have to ask what success will look like for Senator Dabakis. Most assuredly Dabakis will have a hard time passing legislation that stays anywhere left of center – not only because of the makeup of the Utah State Legislature on the whole, but also because Dabakis’ political foils will have little interest in advancing the very obvious ideologies of the Utah Democratic Party.

What is interesting is that I can also see Dabakis playing a key role behind the scenes.  Dabakis has many key relationships with lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, and has the ability to translate liberal ideas into moderate legislation – legislation that can easily get support from all members of the legislature.

So, in short, Dabakis will see little to no success in running the “red meat” bills his district demands, but he could easily be a consensus builder behind the scenes if he plays his cards right. In reality only time will tell.

Keep an eye on Dabakis during this session, and also note the overall tone of the Senate. Dabakis will be able to work the system from day one. In the end, a successful Senator Dabakis may be one that can call legislators out in front of the media in the morning and then sit down with them for dinner at night.

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

A Democratic Lovefest: Thoughts on the Senate District 2 Debate

November 28, 2012 by 3 Comments

It’s Tuesday night, the election is three weeks in the rear view mirror, and I’m already having withdrawals.

So, naturally, I found myself at the Utah Senate District 2 debate watching a bunch of bleeding heart Democrats try their best to convince the 160 Democratic delegates who will vote in the special election that each is the most liberal candidate.

It was like watching the Republican primary debates in reverse. Instead of trying to be the most conservative, they were trying to be the most liberal. I had to pinch myself to see if I was still awake. This is Utah, right?

This is Utah, and apparently there are liberals here, not just Democrats who would become moderate Republicans upon leaving the state. Real, bona fide, liberal Democrats. Granted, I think that nearly all of them were in the room there at the University of Utah’s Museum of Art and hosted by the Alliance for a Better UTAH and the ABU Education Fund. The room wasn’t full–probably only half the chairs were taken, but there was a healthy turn-out of delegates and news reporters.

Rather than do a play-by-play (you can check my twitter feed for that), here are a few impressions on the candidates who attended:

Will Carlson. If I remember right, Will was a class ahead of me in law school at the SJ Quinney. I completely disagreed with almost everything he said, but I found him to be refreshingly honest. Early in the debate, a topic turned to how Democrats, who have only five seats in the Utah Senate, will get anything done. Rather than act like he can find a way to compromise, Carlson said this:

Compromise is something you do when you have a seat at the table. Unfortunately, Utah Democrats have been on the table too long and we don’t have a place to compromise our power…when it’s time to stand for truth, compromise is not a top priority.”

I don’t think it will win him many votes, and I disagree with him on what he believes, but I do find his attitude refreshing. Carlson played the role of an outsider to Utah’s political elites throughout the night, and I think it was probably an honest self-assessment.

Robert Comstock. I found it difficult to follow Comstock’s rationale. Clearly he means well, but his reality sounded, well, a bit out there, even compared to Democrats. An ordained Christian minister and, by his own account, a community organizer, he seemed to be trying to throw out the reddest of the red meat to Democrats in the room, lambasting the legislature for intentionally trying to destroy the Great Basin through public lands policies and putting himself forward as a would-be advocate for the poor in Utah legislature (admirable, if Quixotic).

WinterPride: Selisse, Jackie, Peter Corroon

WinterPride: Selisse, Jackie, Peter Corroon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Peter Corroon. Mr. Milquetoast, but, in the words of Barack Obama, he “punches above his weight.” He’s the favorite to win, though, and  I suspect that’s because Utah Democrats see him as the candidate most able to appeal to the Utah legislature’s predominantly white, male demographic. In large part, I think they’re right. I spoke with Senator Scott Jenkins this morning, and he said that he liked Peter, having worked with him before and calling him “level headed.” Last night, Corroon seemed to fit that description, though dropping his cousin Howard Dean’s name felt gratuitous and pandering, as did his promise to fight Republicans on abortion. Corroon said he supports raising taxes (hard to question him on that since he’s trying to do it in Salt Lake County right now).  His quote of the night: “When it comes to human dignity, standing up for people, especially those in need in our community, I think that’s where we don’t compromise,  but where we stand strong as [Democrats].”  That’s bleeding heart liberalism for you.

Jim Dabakis. Ah, Dabakis…the Democrat of Democrats. In many ways, Jim is the best thing to happen to Utah Democrats in recent memory. Clearly brilliant, clearly articulate, and clearly passionate, he’s acquired and embraced a reputation as a loud, vociferous critic of Utah Republicans, something that more than one of the candidates during the debate alluded to when they said they would not be a “barking dog” in the legislature. While that’s great as a party leader, I don’t think being shrill will play well, nor does exaggerating and vilifying the GOP give him credibility as a lawmaker. He will do well on Saturday because he has delegate respect, but he doubt he’ll win first place.

Brian Doughty. Doughty already has legislation ready to go, on day one…and he reminded delegates about it several times during the night. Like every other candidate on the stage, Doughty said that he thinks it’s time for a tax hike and he supports abortion, but went the extra mile to call the Republican members of the Utah legislature “sheep.” I can’t think that attitude will help engender a lot of good will for the minority party, and I think delegates will agree (if if they think Republicans are sheep).

Jenny Wilson. Wilson billed herself as the only candidate with legislative experience.  In comparison with Mr. Milquetoast,  she came across as the most consistentwith her past positions during her tenure as a Salt Lake County Councilmember. Where Corroon tries to talk a moderate stance while consistently taking liberal positions (raising taxes, supporting abortion, increasing gay marriage rights), Wilson’s rhetoric seemed to match her actions more consistently than other candidates. At one point, she became choked up while describing her disgust of Mitt Romney and her support for abortion, and I think she meant it, which is almost more scary than if she was pandering to the delegates.

English: Utah State Capitol. Taken by me in 2002.

English: Utah State Capitol. Taken by me in 2002. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Other observations:

  • If Corroon wins, he’ll represent a decreasing percentage of Democratic Party demographics: straight, married, white men. With three of the six candidates on the stage gay and only one  a woman (a surprise to me, actually), odds are higher that  a gay man will join the Utah Senate. In many ways, I think Democrats would be well served to have Dabakis in the legislature, but I doubt it’ll happen.
  • Taxes and teachers: they’ll vote for them. With the exception of the food tax, the candidates all want to raise taxes, especially to increase teachers’ salaries. Ironically, almost none of the candidates drew a relationship to increasing teachers’ salaries and increasing student success. Very simply, and clearly, they all said that just because Utah is not paying teachers as much as other states, taxes should increase to compensate, adding that they would defend teachers.  It was bold faced pandering to UEA. I couldn’t help but wonder: what about the kids? Some, in some dark corner of the auditorium, came back an answer: kids, and their parents, don’t donate to campaigns–teachers’ unions do.
  • Jim Dabakis is smooth. It’s very hard not to like him, and he’s very good at being gracious to, well, almost everyone. He opened by complimenting just about everyone in the room, and other than caricaturing Republicans as governing from secretive, “smoke filled rooms” (he seemed to forget that most members of the Utah legislature are LDS and don’t smoke), he actually had fairly reasonable responses to most of the questions, including the gay marriage question, leaving me more interested in working with him on that issue than anyone else at the table.
  • English: Number of self-identified Democrats v...

    English: Number of self-identified Democrats vs. self-identified Republicans, per state, according to Gallup, January-June 2010 http://www.gallup.com/poll/141548/States-Competitive-Terms-Party-Identification.aspx. 18 point Democratic advantage 10-17 point Democratic advantage 3-9 point Democratic advantage 2 point Democratic advantage through 2 point Republican advantage 3-9 point Republican advantage 10-17 point Republican advantage 18+ point Republican advantage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Utah Democrats are out of step with Utah voters. If the views of these candidates are truly representative of Utah Democrats, then Utah Democrats are in complete denial about why they keep losing elections. Despite taking a beating across the state (excepting Jim Matheson, who squeeked out a win by 768 votes, and Ben McAdams, who won by pretty much rebranding himself as something other than the most liberal member of the Utah Senate, a rating multiple organizations have given him), Democrats seem not to care about why. While Republicans nationwide are having a “come to Jesus” moment about why they lost the White House to Barack Obama when economic fundamentals should have given it to them, Democrats in Utah seem to blithely believe they can go on supporting higher taxes, abortion, teachers’ unions over students,  gay marriage (versus civil unions) and entitlement expansion. These are all policies that have been pursued successfully in California, a state that is largely mired in heavy debt, while Utah, with near opposite policies, has grown at 3% or higher for over six months and has seen unemployment drop to 5.4% from 7.8% during the height of the recession.

  • A Utah first: cussing in a debate.

With only 160 delegates on the line, it’s hard to say who will win. Regardless of the winner, though, I believe the next senator from Senate District 2 is likely to be to the left of center and out of step, for better or worse, with mainstream Utahns.

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics, Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Salt Lake County facing not one but two tax hikes in 2013

November 9, 2012 by 1 Comment

In an act bereft of leadership, Peter Corroon‘s goodbye gift to Salt Lake County is a proposed 17.5% property tax increase. The proposal comes just days after voters in Salt Lake County approved a $47 million bond (Proposition 1) for parks and trails and chose Democrat Ben McAdams–who promised to “will hold the line on taxes“–to replace Corroon.  Both would take effect in 2013.

Corroon says that Salt Lake County requires a property tax hike of $39.9 million to fill the gap between revenues and his $788 million budget. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, County Council members have been presented with multiple demonstrations over the last year that show how inflation has eroded the County’s purchasing power 26% since the last property tax increase in 2001.

Ironically, the tax increase is only slightly smaller than the ONLY tax increase the Utah legislature has imposed on the entire state since the economy entered recession, a cigarette sales tax of $43 million. In contrast, voters have the choice of not buying cigarettes if they don’t approve of the tax. Property owners don’t have the same option.

Meanwhile, Corroon’s successor is demonstrating his leadership by avoiding taking any position on the issue.

McAdams told the Salt Lake Tribune. “I have a lot of questions that I’m going to be asking. At the same time, I want to recognize that I don’t take office until January and don’t want to overstep my bounds.”

Hogwash. McAdams predecessor just saved McAdams from doing what McAdams promised to do during his campaign–find inefficiencies in County government and streamline them to save money–but that he has little skill or experience actually doing.

To be clear, I’m not opposed to taxes for oppositions sake. There is an appropriate time and place for taxes. However, how this increase is being proposed is disingenuous and it demonstrates a cynicism about Salt Lake County voters. Not only has Corroon avoided facing voters to respond to his tax increase and is unwilling to take the case to them to persuade them to support it, but his successor is also unwilling to take a position on the tax increase. As a result, the increase is proposed by a lame duck Mayor, and his successor can shift responsibility on his predecessor when he runs for reelection in 2016.

That’s not leadership. That’s cynicism, and for a Mayor who came to office in 2004 promising greater transparency, it’s a failure.

“Mayor Corroon has repeatedly asserted that he stands for transparency and honesty with the taxpaying public,” said M. Royce Van Tassell, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association. “Given the way he played ‘hide the ball’ with this tax hike during the debate over Proposition 1, it’s awfully hard to take those assertions at face value.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics Tagged With: , , , ,

Welcome to Obamaland

September 6, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“Once you vote black, you never go back: Obama 2012″ says the pin being worn on the Democratic Convention floor.

Welcome to Obama Land, where Bill Clinton is more popular than the Commander in Chief and it’s ok to sell racist buttons.

I came home last night from visiting with some neighbors to find Bill Clinton on my television. He was in prime form, and the crowd was eating from his hand. Unfortunately, my four-year old was still awake, so I made my way to her room to tell a story or two. We both dozed off, and twenty minutes passed before I could sneak out…but never fear: Clinton was still speaking.

I’ll spare you the details, except to say this: more than one Democrat found themselves wishing that Clinton was on the ticket this election. In fact, I wonder if Clinton himself isn’t wishing he was on the ticket, too(thank heavens for the Twenty Second Amendment). Not only did Clinton stand before Democrats as a master speaker, a circus ring leader, an orator of epic proportions, he is the most successful Democrat  in a generation. In spite of winning the White House without wining a majority of the country (thank you, Ross Perot), he learned to work with a Republican controlled Congress to keep the country moving, saw a budget surplus, and even reformed welfare to require more of welfare recipients.

Obama, even with control of both Houses of Congress, couldn’t even pass a budget, let alone move the country from recession to growth, to say nothing of the boom that Clinton saw during his years (and the bust that he left just in time to avoid). There is that Affordable Care Act thing that he’s got to his name, but all that has boiled down to for him is loathing from the right and begrudging gratitude from the left, because who really wants a tax increase?

Which is what it is.

And so, with the cheers for 42  ringing through the auditorium, the pièce de résistance will be when President Obama takes the stage (right after the Gaff in Chief) to tell America why, with 8.3% unemployment, $16 trillion in debt, and nearly 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, he should be awarded a second term.

See, it’s all about the economy, and we aren’t stupid.

With that in mind, here are a few quick hits that you should be aware of going into tonight’s DNC speeches:

_____

President Obama isn’t just competitive. He vastly overestimates his ability…says the New York Times:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

His scope of competition includes important things, like golf and bowling:

Image representing New York Times as depicted ...

Image via CrunchBase

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

That’s why, says Forbes, Eastwood may have been right: “Obama is a lousy CEO.”

 _____

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

In 2008, candidate Obama won with a coalition of groups, including the young. Today, with more college graduates than ever living at home (and perhaps staring at “faded Obama posters“) with parents, Obama’s popularity among young voters has dropped. Unemployment for ages 18 to 29 is at 12.7%, higher than the national average and a level that has depressed 1.7 million of them to stop looking for jobs.  Says Karl Rove:

Then there are voters ages 18 to 29, among Mr. Obama’s most important supporters in 2008. The roughly 23.7 million “millennials” who voted in 2008 were 18% of the electorate, up 2.9 million voters over the previous presidential race. They gave Mr. Obama 66% to Sen. John McCain‘s 32%, according to exit polls. This margin of roughly eight million votes was a major chunk of Mr. Obama’s overall edge of 9.6 million.

But youthful enthusiasm for Mr. Obama has waned. In October 2008, 78% of voters 18-29 told Gallup they would definitely vote that year. Now it’s 58%.

There’s also evidence that fewer younger people are registered. A November 2011 study from Tufts University found that 43% of the decline in Nevada’s voter rolls since 2008 came from voters ages 18-24. Similarly, while North Carolina’s rolls rose by 93,709 over that period, more than 48,000 younger voters were dropped from the rolls, 80% of them Democrats.

Mr. Obama’s lead over Mr. Romney in the latest JZ Analytics poll among voters ages 18-29 is 49% to 41%. If young voters turn out this fall in the same numbers as in 2008 and give Mr. Obama this eight-point margin, it will take 2.8 million votes from Mr. Obama’s total and add more than 3.3 million to Mr. Romney’s tally.

Ouch. With 53% of all 18-24 year-olds back home with mom and dad, robust growth will be needed to get them back, but the 2.2.% of growth we’ve seen since 2009 just isn’t cutting it.

_____

 What do you do when your narrative doesn’t fit the facts? Explain them? Take responsibility for them? Change plans to compensate?

Silly me. Obviously, you ignore all that and just plow forward with the narrative. Duh.  Leave fact checking to the fact checkers.

Among other problems in the Democratic narrative over the last couple nights is the jobs situation. We’ve been hearing a lot about 4.5 million new jobs. If that were true, the question would be, what was all that from the Republicans last week about “are you better off?” Clearly, with 4.5 million new jobs, we are.

However, if it’s not clear to you, let FactCheck.org clarify: there has not been 4.5 million new jobs.

  • The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million “new jobs” under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office.

And that’s just one of many.

What else can we expect tonight? And how will the spin doctors tell it tomorrow.

[New York Times][Forbes][WSJ][FactCheck.org]

Related articles
Filed Under: Democratic Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Dems remove God from platform. Will God remove Dems from the White House?

September 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m fully behind Thomas Jefferson’s construction of a wall between church and state. In the liberal democracy of a healthy republic, there is no place for the state to condone one religion over another.

That doesn’t mean that we ought to discard any reference to God.  It’s bigger than any political elephant in the room with, as of last summer, polling showing that nine in ten Americans still believe in God.  The Gallup poll I just cited notes that belief in God is lower among younger people, easterners, and liberals. Where 96% of the South and 92% of the West believe in God, the number drops to 86% in the East. Among conservatives the number is up at 98%, while it drops over 13% for liberals to 85%.

With belief being lower for liberals, then, we probably should not be surprised that the Democratic National Convention is removing reference to God from the party platform.

 This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

It’s not unlike a the scrawl on the wall in 1964: “Nietzsche said ‘God is dead.’ God said ‘Nietzsche is dead.’” You can try to talk around God, but his presence is there. In politics, you ignore faith at your peril (just ask candidate Obama who had to answer questions about his pastor Jeremiah Wright in 2008).

Does it matter? Maybe not. This is a political platform, after all. It’s is designed to state the beliefs and philosophy for governing, not the faith and worship of its members.  However, I know a few Democrats, and many of them are people of great faith, not only professing belief in God but doing a lot to prove it.  That’s why I can’t help but wonder: why remove reference to God from the platform? With a large part of America professing a belief in God, why remove a statement of meek acknowledgement of a greater power in blessing us with potential?

Could it be that Democrats are looking elsewhere for the source of American success?

[Gallup][CBN]

Filed Under: Democratic Politics, First Amendment Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts